Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

suse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#111

Post by geerlingguy »

gareim wrote: post #88
nhanlon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We (RESF/Rocky) are _not_ CIQ, and do not take direction from CIQ. End of story.

I knew you'd show up and say this. CIQ's CEO claims to have founded Rocky and is the current president of RESF, is Rocky's most prominent sponsor, and Rocky's recent moves have been in the same direction that CIQ requires in order to survive. Regardless of direct control or not, Rocky's financial incentives align with CIQ's. As you so point out your bias, it would be really nice if you didn't speak on behalf of your…

It'd also be nice if employees of Red Hat wouldn't make personal attacks on folks affiliated with Rocky Linux (and to a greater extent CIQ), justified or not, but I can understand nhanlon's defensiveness, just as I understand the defensiveness from many on Red Hat's payroll surrounding everything the past month+.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#112

Post by geerlingguy »

dralley wrote: post #94
pygar wrote: post #86

Probably a dumb question, as I'm not really on the enterprise side of Linux but: Isn't Canonical in the same business as Red Hat? Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"? Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu?

>Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"? I don't think there are any corporate entities reselling a rebuilt Ubuntu

Are there any reselling a rebuilt RHEL?

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#113

Post by geerlingguy »

eraser215 wrote: post #52
colechristensen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing. The great value of RedHat was supported software. You could buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat and the vendor and if it wasn't they were quite motivate…

It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places that this isn't an IBM thing.

There have been numerous employees, former employees, and even VP level folks who have said this direction comes from Red Hat, and not IBM.

I'm inclined to believe them, with the caveat that this reality may not have come to be had IBM never bought Red Hat. That still doesn't imply IBM forced the change.

It's public record that Paul Cormier has considered the way CentOS worked a problem for years... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRol3YAV-E&t=360s

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#114

Post by kiratp »

anyoneamous wrote: post #99
Espionage724 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can and should probably be paying for RHEL. What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not that special.

> can and should probably be paying for RHEL. I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more willing to financially support open-source development, but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them open a support request - on that basis I can see why people feel that the price is too high. When the options are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloade…

“No support requests” was non-trivially due to RH’s efforts. Did those people thing that stable OSes just build themselves?

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#115

Post by jasoneckert »

I remember when Sun Microsystems and AT&T teamed up in the late 1980s and Sun announced the next version of their OS would be based on SysV UNIX instead of BSD UNIX. Since Sun was this massive force in the UNIX market back then, other UNIX vendors formed the Open Software Foundation (OSF) in protest.

In many ways, Red Hat and IBM are the modern Sun Microsystems and AT&T, so it's not surprising that their competitors are essentially doing the same thing.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#116

Post by firen777 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #93
loph wrote: post #67

Simply put, I'm not using anything with 0racle's name on it. Free software from 0racle? There are gonna be strings attached... to lawyers.

How is IBM better than Oracle?

The part about IBM in this blog post did change my opinion a bit: https://www.lpi.org/blog/2023/07/30/ibm-red-hat-and-free-sof...

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#117

Post by ungamedplayer »

geerlingguy wrote: post #111
gareim wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew you'd show up and say this. CIQ's CEO claims to have founded Rocky and is the current president of RESF, is Rocky's most prominent sponsor, and Rocky's recent moves have been in the same direction that CIQ requires in order to survive. Regardless of direct control or not, Rocky's financial incentives align with CIQ's. As you so point out your bias, it would be really nice if you didn't speak on behalf of your…

It'd also be nice if employees of Red Hat wouldn't make personal attacks on folks affiliated with Rocky Linux (and to a greater extent CIQ), justified or not, but I can understand nhanlon's defensiveness, just as I understand the defensiveness from many on Red Hat's payroll surrounding everything the past month+.

Where is the personal attack?

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#118

Post by jzb »

ftaghn wrote: post #87
loph wrote: post #67

Simply put, I'm not using anything with 0racle's name on it. Free software from 0racle? There are gonna be strings attached... to lawyers.

As much as people may hate oracle, they employ significant contributors to the Linux kernel. https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/ Many in very important subsystems. The XFS maintainer (who just recently stepped down from this role) and contributor Darrick Wong works for Oracle. Meanwhile, btrfs is the creation of Chris Mason, who worked there until 2012. Modern filesystems on linux owe a decent debt to Oracle. Good luck…

Competition is great. Xeroxing the code and undercutting them isn’t actually competing.

Oracle went after Red Hat when Red Hat bought JBoss. Larry said as much. They didn’t like Red Hat actually competing with them, so Oracle sought to undermine RHEL & have a full stack so they didn’t have to share customer spends.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#119

Post by jzb »

Espionage724 wrote: post #63
hrrsn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sign up for the developer license and install it on up to 16 machines, after that you need to pay

Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p 16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm also betting there's not some thorough verification process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure would be h…

Because Red Hat’s competitors have been stirring the pot and because people have become accustomed to a free RHEL and feel entitled to it.

Re: CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

#120

Post by jzb »

pygar wrote: post #86

Probably a dumb question, as I'm not really on the enterprise side of Linux but: Isn't Canonical in the same business as Red Hat? Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"? Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu?

Canonical recently introduced a “Pro” subscription - I’m not sure how sources are available from that.

There really aren’t rebuilders for Ubuntu in the same way, and Canonical has a very different place in the industry. I think there was a thing a few years ago about Canonical going after some of the distros based on Ubuntu, but I think that was over pointing directly to Canonical’s repos (rather than hosting their own binaries), which is reasonable.

If Canonical were a public company or owned by one and had a multi-billion dollar business being undermined by clones and freeloaders… I think you’d see similar actions.

Post reply on HN